Fru-Con Construction Corporati, et al v. SMUD, No. 09-17078 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 19 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-17078 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00583-LKKGGH and MEMORANDUM * TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, a municipal utility district, Defendant - Appellee. FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff, No. 09-17123 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00583-LKKGGH and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, a municipal utility district, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 14, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the district court s order issuing a stay pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation District. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion given that a jury verdict had been reached in the parallel state court proceedings, that the claims arise under state law, and that the state court proceedings were adequate to protect the interests of the parties. See Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1413-15 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
